Thread: ASTM SoP Meeting

Just found this on activerain.com
**************************************
Real Estate Blog - ASTM Meeting details

ASTM Meeting details

This is a breakdown of what happened at the ASTM meeting.

Well, the motion to initiate an ASTM standard for home inspectors was defeated by a vote of about 109 to 53 (it was hard to hear the exact vote results through the applause). There were three abstentions, one was the NAR representative. The meeting started on time with a little over 160 persons present. It began with Pat Picariello ( pronounced: "Pick-Ah-Rello") first running through ASTM's history, similar standards and the standard-creating procedures at ASTM. There was an hour+ long Q&A session led by Mr. Picariello. This began the sharing of positions which, as was expected, all of NAHI was in favor of ASTM standards and everyone else was against. A few sarcastic jabs were exchanged amongst the attendees but mostly, the majority just wanted to get the vote over with.

The most damaging points that were voiced were that Mr. Picariello admitted that the "Producers" (home inspectors) would make up a minority of the persons populating the committees and the voting members; Real Estate Agents, Architects, Engineers, Lenders, HVAC Contractors, Plumbers, etc would outnumber the inspectors. Second, adoption of these standards by state legislatures or real estate organizations' contracts would create an opening for poor/inexperienced inspectors to enter the marketplace doing home inspections to ASTM standards. Also, ASTM would charge inspectors for the use of these standards and all associated forms; forms that could be specialized to various areas/subjects.

Lunch went from Noon to 1:20 PM.

Further explanation of the hierarchy of committees within the proposed standards-creating groups was explained by Mr. Picariello. At 1:50 PM, a motion was taken from the floor to proceed with the ASTM standard process which was seconded and initiated a comment period from the attendees. This is where the impassioned arguments commenced. By a margin greater than 2 to 1, speakers, including Frank Lesch, Don Norman, Marv Goldstein, and Nick Gromicko, argued that the standards that each of the national organizations maintain are well honed and serve the public much more positively than could an ASTM standard.

There was a couple of "kum bay yah" speeches from the NAHI members; one of which was surreptitiously stifled by the attendees shouts and moans. FYI: Nick Gromicko actually received the loudest applause for his speech on voting against the standard. The vote was taken by paper ballot. Several members asked repeatedly to have association rep's observe the ballot counting which was dismissed with a disgusted look by Mr. Picariello but I noticed that there were members watching the counting. The results were announced after Mr. Picariello thanked the attendees for coming and participating in this "emotional" vote. The meeting dissolved immediately.

Posted by Scott Patterson on 09/27/2007
**********************************

Thanks Scott.

Similar Threads:

• polyethylene plastic tubing - astm d 2737
• TREC Meeting on Oct. 8th
• ASTM Meeting Results
• Texas Boys - S.A. meeting

Oh... so an inaccurate post is being perpetuated?

What part of it is a lie or needs clairifying because of it's deciet?

Com'on, Scott may be a hand-fed, doughnut scarfing Nick-dog (see photo )... but I havent come to know him through the years as a liar...

Geeze.

For some reason, John McKenna left off the last line of Scott's article:
"This is as reported to me by a close friend who was in attendance and took copious notes."

Joe H.-- that's just a rediculious statement.

Every code you know, every bit of information that you were ever taught was handed down by a book, person or other form of media that was/is second hand. But yet both you and I know them to be what is and isn't usable because of the context of what and how they are written.

If something is written as second-hand information and stated as such, why would you or anyone else try and make it as a person posting (as second hand material) should be impuned for not being there when it happened...

Non-sense and just trying to stir up bulls#!+.

I'm sure everyone has noticed that Jo H. is has not shared what is "inaccurate" and seems to only be seeking to stir up controversy.

Originally Posted by Joseph P. Hagarty

Those that had an interest in the Meeting should have Attended.

Those that Chose Not to Attend should refrain from reporting as to what allegedly occurred.

Do you disagree???

Well Joe, as you were there why don't you tell us all about it?

No... Joe, it is you who have make accusations of false or misleading postings. It is now incumbent upon you to set the story straight, contrary to what was posted by Scott.

You analogy is wrong in that my reports and finding are first person and identified as such. Scott's posting was identified as a second person posting, which clarified that *HE* was not making those statements but others *WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE* were.

By you continuing to post and not state the inaccuracies of Scott's re-post, you are absolutely giving Scotts' post credibility and less to your own.

The ownus is not on Scott-- but it is on you to back-up your claims.

The last sentence of "This is as reported to me by a close friend who was in attendance and took copious notes." was editted in long after the original post and only after Scott began taking heat for the original message which was that the post presented his personal observations. I sure read it that way until he was challenged. I suspect the meat of his post is accurate, its just the delivery that left something to be desired.

Originally Posted by Mike Boyett

The last sentence of "This is as reported to me by a close friend who was in attendance and took copious notes." was editted in long after the original post and only after Scott began taking heat for the original message which was that the post presented his personal observations. I sure read it that way until he was challenged. I suspect the meat of his post is accurate, its just the delivery that left something to be desired.

Yes, I did add in the section about the information coming from a close friend who was in attendance. I failed to add that and I noticed it when folks started posting this without my permission. I also edited the original notes that had some comical comments about some folks who were in attendance, that would have not been appropriate to post publicly. Not a big deal and it has been corrected.

As for it being accurate, please tell me and everyone else what is not accurate. I have compared it to several other accounts and it follows them pretty much line for line of what went on.

Originally Posted by Joseph P. Hagarty

Scott,

As a Professional, You should have suggested that the "Attending" individual post their own account of what transpired at the meeting.

Why?

I had his/her permission to post it. He/She dose not participate on the various boards.

Joe, sorry that this has upset you so much. I had thought more of you than your display over this.

Would you care to tell what is inaccurate about the ASTM post. I and everyone else really want to know. If this is an inaccurate post it needs to be corrected and the actual accounts put out for everyone to see.

Scott's credibility is not at stake here. Joe, you have challenged him (Scott) on the account on *THIS* forum without posting what you say is wrong with his post...

Again, either bring some credibiliiy to yourself and post the inaccuracuries or you have just a line of arguement for the sake of arguing. Makes not sense!

I predict that in five years or so when a few of the HI organizations here are mere shadows of their once former glorious selves, we who are still in this profession along with those future home inspectors who have yet to arrive on the scene will come to understand with great melancholy the opportunity that was lost through the selfishness of a few who desperately attempt to remain relevant.

Originally Posted by Joseph P. Hagarty

Pretty good synopsis of the meeting for one who also was not there.

Are you telepathic?

Telepathy not required when the writing is on the wall.

Joe, I could give a sh!t less about you or what you post. But, you can't just pull accusations out of your ass and expect to be credible.

The little kid syndrome of "I don't have to post anything-- you should have been there" just makes my point.

Hey, I've always thought highly of you but, if you've got some mud to sling, either post the 'meat' of your accusations or just become irrelevent. It's that simple. I could care less.

Joe,

I wouldn't lose any sleep over Richard's demand of credibility as he has issues of his own.

Just a cursory glance at his website shows the ICC logo proudly displayed on his web page, but when one performs a Search for an ICC certified professional on the ICC website... Well you guessed it, there are no Rushings listed in Texas. It would just figure that Richard would have no respect for ASTM either, save your breath.

Quote by Joe H.: "I Do not lend credence to an innocuous / anonymous post by posting for others."

So, basically you are saying that what Scott posted was fabricated by someone else and/or inaccurate...

If so, why is it inaccurate and what is your actual beef with the post? It's really easy to clear up.... Why not just clarify?

You stated below... "Richard, get over yourself."

This isn't about me, it's about YOU (since you have made it that way). I'm not the one who refuses to even say what the heck he's even talking about. You've repeatively stated that Scott shouldn't have posted someone else's notes... *Why*-- there was nothing offensive or derogatory toward any organization in the message. So, what the heck are you even publically going off on someone over a post that was benign in nature. Makes no sense...

Guys, this is by far the silliest thread I’ve ever seen on Brian’s fine educational BB. It also appears that Mr. Hararty follows the law of logical argument; “anything is possible if you don’t know what you are talking about.” The simple solution is to ignore people like him as they’re addicts of attention of any kind.

I was unable to attend the Lunar walk and Flag planting. Most say it happened some don't.